First we consider question 1: Consider the punning issue to be divided into two kinds of
punning. The first kind adds instance punning against classes and
properties. In some sense this is the most easily understood kind of
punning and those for which there are obvious use cases. The second
kind are the other punning pairs - class/property, objectproperty/
dataproperty. Is it worth considering these separately? Do we have
any kind of consensus that one or both are desirable/useful?

Doug Lenat: It seems that there are no clear opinions on whether to distinguish those 2 kinds of punning.

Turning now to question 2: Two cited cases for punning are Metamodeling and being able to
have real properties on classes/properties. But what exactly do
people consider Metamodeling, and does the punning proposal address
these cases. As an example, it does not address the cases on Conrad's
Metamodeling page because we don't plan to support modification of
owl syntax.

Boris Motik: "services" are instances, take instances of people,... the value of the property is not a particular person but the class Person.

Alan Ruttenberg: is there an expectation that monkey species statements flow to monkeys?

...Monkeys eat bananas meaning that EACH instance (each individual monkey) does this, and Monkeys is itself an instance of Species(Type)

...there is a reasonable case for treating classes as instances and properties as instances

Uli Sattler: ...but this will be taken care of with annotation spaces/other extended annotation mechanisms

Markus Krötzsch: the use case that Boris mentioned is similar to my experience. City instances have the property population, e.g.

Michael Smith: describing another case, may be the same as Markus' essentially.

Turning now to the next question, number 3: From a technical point of view, how would dropping some or all of
punning help? To what extent is the amount of new vocabulary
dependent on our choice of punning? How does punning effect OWL Full?

Peter Patel-Schneider: using rdf + a litle bit of owl means what, exactly? you're probably not in owl-dl any longer.

Rinke Hoekstra: just a thought, but if this dl-specific vocab is confusing to rdf/full users, couldn't we introduce a different namespace for dl vocab? ... ah, but that introduces yet other syntactic bloat

Moving on to question 4 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0231.html
Namely: From a communication/understandability/documentation point of
view, how would our choices effect the communities that we want to
use OWL. What is the extra documentation needed to explain punning?
How much would eliminating or reducing punning help? What's the
appropriate balance of cost/benefit?

...and those users will be around for many years, using EMACS eg and that's it.

Boris Motik: If they can learn to use vi, they can use the distinction between object and data properties :-)

...they won't be using Protege and similar tools that go way behond what they need.

Deborah McGuinness: stepping back a bit, to the general issue of adding more and more new constructs...

...maybe there is such a thing as too many.

Michael Smith: To the final question, it is necessarily the case that additional features complicate user documentation. Certainly this is the case with OWA and lack of UNA. Like those cases, the complication is a trade-off between documentation complexity and meeting use cases

Rinke Hoekstra: Note that we are again talking about vocab... but this is a different issue than punning itself?

...TO handle that, maybe select fragments ahead of time to help them focus on a useful subset or two.

Ian Horrocks: Look at SQL -- who knows all of the language, but many users seem to manage.

Doug Lenat: good point, Ian.

Uli Sattler: And even for documentation, you could hide/fold in some of these, I guess.